State v. Williams
| Decision Date | 15 December 1971 |
| Docket Number | No. 134,134 |
| Citation | 280 N.C. 132,184 S.E.2d 875 |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | STATE of North Carolina v. Robert WILLIAMS, Jr. |
Atty. Gen. Robert Morgan and Asst. Atty. Gen. Myron C. Banks for the State.
Winston, Coleman & Bernholz, by Barry T. Winston, Chapel Hill, for defendant.
All of defendant's assignments of error are directed to the charge.
Defendant contends that the court erred in instructing the jury as to second degree murder and manslaughter. In this connection, the trial judge instructed the jury:
There is no evidence of malice in this case other than the presumption if you find from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that the Defendant intentionally inflicted the wound upon the deceased, Mr. Stroud, as he has been referred to here in the Bill of Indictment. Then, if you so find, that it proximately resulted, there is from no other cause, the death of Mr. Stroud, that the would was intentionally inflicted by the Defendant, that raises the presumption that he is guilty of murder in the second degree.
The correct rule concerning the presumptions which arise in a homicide case are found in State v. Propst, 274 N.C. 62, 161 S.E.2d 560. There the Court stated:
If and when the State satisfied the jury from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant intentionally shot Taylor with a .38 pistol and thereby proximately caused Taylor's death, two presumptions arose: (1) that the killing was unlawful, and (2) that it was done with malice. Nothing else appearing, the defendant would be guilty of murder in the second degree. State v. Gordon, 241 N.C. 356, 85 S.E.2d 322; State v. Adams, 241 N.C. 559, 85 S.E.2d 918; State v. Wagoner, 249 N.C. 637, 107 S.E.2d 83; State v. Revis, 253 N.C. 50, 116 S.E.2d 171; State v. Phillips, 264 N.C. 508, 515, 142 S.E.2d 337, 340; State v. Price, 271 N.C. 521, 525, 157 S.E.2d 127, 129--130; State v. Cooper, 273 N.C. 51, 57, 159 S.E.2d 305, 309.
Here the charge does not mention the intentional use of a deadly weapon. Nor are the presumptions which arise from the intentional use of a deadly weapon correctly stated. Further, nothing appears in this part of the charge which indicates that the presumption of malice might be rebutted. Thus, even a cursory examination of this portion of the charge reveals that it does not comply with the rule as correctly stated in State v. Propst, supra.
The court thereafter charged:
Now, manslaughter, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, as I have told you before, if you find from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant, Mr. Williams, intentionally inflicted the wound in the chest of the deceased, Jerry Stroud, and that it proximately resulted in death of Mr. Stroud, then he would be presumed to be guilty of murder in the second degree; . . .
The court set out to charge on manslaughter, but proceeded to give a definition of murder in the second degree.
Again, in discussing distinctions in homicides, the record shows:
(The presence in one case of premeditation and deliberation and the absence of the other, or one or both of these elements is the distinction different between murder in the first degree and murder in the second degree.)
To the above portion of the charge as set out in brackets, the Defendant excepts. DEFENDANT'S EXCEPTION NO 4
(The presence of the one and the absence of the other element of malice is the distinction between murder in the second degree and manslaughter.)
The chief purpose of a charge is to give a clear instruction which applies the law to the evidence in such manner as to assist the jury in understanding the case and in reaching a correct verdict. State v. Biggs, 224 N.C. 722, 32 S.E.2d 352; Lewis v. Watson, 229 N.C. 20, 47 S.E.2d 484.
Defendant further contends that the trial judge expressed opinions to the jury. In support of this contention defendant cites portions of the record which show the following:
Criminal negligence is more than carelessness. The Defendant's act of criminal negligence, if it was done, was with...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Hutchins
...It is fundamental that the trial judge must declare and explain the law that arises upon the evidence. E. g., State v. Williams, 280 N.C. 132, 184 S.E.2d 875 (1971). The state does not have the burden of proof that in a given capital case no mitigating circumstances exist. State v. Barfield......
-
State v. Moore, 637A82
...in understanding the case and in reaching a correct verdict. State v. Biggs, 224 N.C. 722, 32 S.E.2d 352 ...." State v. Williams, 280 N.C. 132, 136, 184 S.E.2d 875, 877 (1971). Stated differently, "[t]he chief object contemplated in the charge is to explain the law of the case, to point out......
-
State v. Lawson
...as certified and can judicially know only what appears in it. State v. Gibbs, 297 N.C. 410, 255 S.E.2d 168 (1979); State v. Williams, 280 N.C. 132, 184 S.E.2d 875 (1971). When, pursuant to App.R. 9(c)(1), the trial transcript, "as agreed to by the opposing party ... or as settled by the tri......
-
State v. Tyson
...the evidence in such manner as to assist the jury in understanding the case and in reaching a correct verdict." State v. Williams, 280 N.C. 132, 136, 184 S.E.2d 875, 877 (1971). It is recognized by this Court that "the preferred method of jury instruction is the use of the approved guidelin......